During the 1970s and 1980s Pharmaceutical companies knowingly sold products contaminated with Hepatitis C and HIV to Haemophiliacs........Learn with Plainly ...
Aside: I think it’s total bullshit that in the US among many other countries, people can only donate blood for free and are urged to as a good deed, but companies are free to take your donation and make massive profits from it and financially burden the receiving patient. I don’t think blood donors should get a cut of the profit, that’s not my point, I’m saying that if we’re giving our blood for free as a “good deed” and it’s considered unethical for us to make money from it, then should the companies processing it not be held to the same standard?
Obviously, you just charge what it costs and don’t make a profit. Or make a profit that isn’t egregious. The problem really isn’t profit, the problem is the type of profit that would make people stop donating blood if they knew about it.
How do you afford the food to make the blood without charging for it? Again, why are blood donors expected to do it out of the goodness of their hearts for no reward, but the companies can make as much money from it as possible, forcing people who are dying to pay for their lives?
We’re also looking at this in a binary fashion which isn’t the only way. Why can’t they just sell the blood at cost or at a low margin to cover their expenses without going into basically extortion of the receiving patient? What’s stopping a competent, democratic government that works for the people from imposing those restrictions on medical companies in the interest of saving lives? Or even nationalising and tax funding blood processing to make it free at the point of access? We’re not going to make blood universally free overnight (that should still be the end goal for humanity as with all essential resources), but when you stand to go bankrupt from a single blood transfusion, it’s a much bigger problem than “merely” charging for blood.
Aside: I think it’s total bullshit that in the US among many other countries, people can only donate blood for free and are urged to as a good deed, but companies are free to take your donation and make massive profits from it and financially burden the receiving patient. I don’t think blood donors should get a cut of the profit, that’s not my point, I’m saying that if we’re giving our blood for free as a “good deed” and it’s considered unethical for us to make money from it, then should the companies processing it not be held to the same standard?
How do you buy the equipment to process it and pay the employee to run the equipment without charging for it?
Universal health care.
Blood donations are free in Australia.
Those receiving them pay nothing.
Obviously, you just charge what it costs and don’t make a profit. Or make a profit that isn’t egregious. The problem really isn’t profit, the problem is the type of profit that would make people stop donating blood if they knew about it.
How do you afford the food to make the blood without charging for it? Again, why are blood donors expected to do it out of the goodness of their hearts for no reward, but the companies can make as much money from it as possible, forcing people who are dying to pay for their lives?
We’re also looking at this in a binary fashion which isn’t the only way. Why can’t they just sell the blood at cost or at a low margin to cover their expenses without going into basically extortion of the receiving patient? What’s stopping a competent, democratic government that works for the people from imposing those restrictions on medical companies in the interest of saving lives? Or even nationalising and tax funding blood processing to make it free at the point of access? We’re not going to make blood universally free overnight (that should still be the end goal for humanity as with all essential resources), but when you stand to go bankrupt from a single blood transfusion, it’s a much bigger problem than “merely” charging for blood.